User talk:Maczkopeti

From Custom Mario Kart
Jump to: navigation, search

Old talk is archived at User talk:Maczkopeti/Archive.

GCN Daisy Cruiser

The edited version of GCN Daisy Cruiser has at least at 2 positions a KCL bug (invisible small wall, sounds *clack* if crossing it).

  • At the starting area at the right side. (Can't find this bug at GCN version)
  • In the mud short cut near the itemboxes at the right side.

-- Wiimm (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I exported the KCL with your tools and only added the missing part to both of them. I'll check both with your tools again.
--maczkopeti (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I checked both. The edited version has 2 invalid triangles, while the GCN version has none.
--maczkopeti (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Re-uploaded it with fixed KCL.
--maczkopeti (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I like to see, that you edit occasionally tracks to improve them. I do the same since years and it seems, that none notifies it. And so I say to you: Thanx!
-- Wiimm (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

HeyhoShipGBA.brres stub

SKB2 contains a HeyhoShipGBA.brres stub. It confused my tools (endless loop because of NULL reference). I have already fixed my tools. Can you please tell me more about your experience with this stub and its impact? -- Wiimm (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I just deleted the model and the texture to it and it seems to work just like regular.
--maczkopeti (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed. But it don't work at other slots :(
-- Wiimm (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Updates to my tracks

I would appreciate being informed of any updates you intend to make to my tracks before you release them. I might not be active on the wiki, but I do check it regularly, and I have several additional contact methods listed on my user page.

I do not mind updates to fix bugs, but I do not appreciate that you have apparently made changes to gameplay and visuals without even a cursory attempt to contact me. For the time being I will roll back your releases until you find time to discuss these changes with me. --Jefe (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to get these updates quickly, before the next CTGP update, and I was afraid you wouldn't reply on time. It has been way over 6 months since they were last updated, and I haven't thought of these being such major changes.
If you can tell me which changes are problematic, I can revert them.
--maczkopeti (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I hope you find an agreement that is good for the public. But remember, v*.1 was released and also downloaded. To avoid a confusion on references, the next version should be e.g. v*.2. And because our Wiki is a kind of encyclopedia, a notice about the "unauthorized" version without download should stay in the history (but not in the news).
@Maczkopeti: Please remove or disable the MEGA downloads for the moment to prohibit more downloads (if not already done). I plan to hide the v*.1 from my track archive too until an agreement is made.
-- Wiimm (talk) 06:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The updates were only available for less than an hour. I don't think such a significant amount of people downloaded it in order to make it v*.2. I remember Mushroom Valley having an unauthorized update which doesn't have info anymore.
I keep up the downloads in case I won't have to change anything, but I already hid the revisions that link to it.
--maczkopeti (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
There were visible in this wiki for 9 hours and I was one who caught them (and released them with >50 other tracks in a test distribution). So the next version should not v*.1!
-- Wiimm (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I you check the history of both tracks' pages, you can see that Jefe reverted the edit after less than hour. Not many people look beyond the page, keep that in mind. However, if it's really that problematic, I'll revert the needed edits in v*.2, if there's any.
--maczkopeti (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstood me: I wanted only to deactivate the download at MEGA, but not to hide all activities in this wiki. Quite the contrary I want a notice about your versions because they are reality!
-- Wiimm (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I deleted them from MEGA and restored their revisions.
--maczkopeti (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not have copies of your updated tracks so you will need to send them to me for approval. I would prefer this discussion to be private instead of on the wiki, so please contact me via Steam or PM on Youtube.

And in the future, send a message to the author of any track you intend to update and give them some time to respond before releasing an update on the wiki. This is the normal procedure as stated in our Published Works policy. Just because an author hasn't updated a track in six months doesn't mean you shouldn't try to notify them of your proposed update. If they don't respond within a reasonable time frame (a week or so) then you may release the track.--Jefe (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I sent you the files via email.
--maczkopeti (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't delete so much pages

This wiki is also a kind of information system. So there is no reason to remove pages, because the download is lost. Perhaps it is good to know, that someone has created a texture I'm searching.

On the other hand, distribs, ct, texture hacks (tracks and vehicles) and fonts, that are only announced, but never released are good deletion candidates.

-- Wiimm (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I think if the download doesn't get re-uploaded in over a year, it's safe to delete the page. They can be restored anytime if the download is found somehow.
--maczkopeti (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
But the information about the existence of X is lost at least for the public.
-- Wiimm (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Never offer your savegame to the public

..., because it can be misused. -- Wiimm (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with those edits?

My edits you reverted should be informative enough to stay, right? If it's just "CTGP Revolution" the link will send you to 1.03 instead of 1.02/1.01/4.4/2.8.

Then I did the same thing you did (remove CTGP numbers) in another page, then you reverted that. That would make your reverted edits wrong too then. I don't get what you're doing?--BlueToad (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It's simple. For example, ASDF_Course has been in CTGP-R since v1.0 and hasn't changed ever since, thus it should collectively say "CTGP Revolution". In the case of GBA Cheep-Cheep Island, it was first added in v1.03, so it can't be simply "CTGP Revolution".
--maczkopeti (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I see, alright thanks.
--BlueToad (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Small Letters

What do you think about the small "Wii" in Canyon Pass and small letters general? -- Wiimm (talk) 23:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No opinion about small Wii? I don't like it. -- Wiimm (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The small prefixes are used on retro track pages to make shared names distinguishable, like SNES Bowser Castle 1 and SNES Bowser Castle 2. The Wii prefix in the case of Canyon Pass is pointless, since it's obvious that the description refers to the original tracks. It's only needed where there's at least another instance of a track that shares name, like in Purple Route.
--maczkopeti (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I know the meaning of the prefix. But my question is: Why using a small font and not the normal one? -- Wiimm (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Music at 1.1 and 2.1

Play 1.1 and 2.1 and you can hear, that they use the same music. And the sound of 0x75 is totally different. I used it in my distributions for some tracks.

-- Wiimm (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

0x75 and 0x7D link to the same music files and have the same volume setting in the revo_kart.brsar. What difference did you hear? As I wrote it in the summary, try changing 0x00000075 to 0x00000079 at 0x391AC0 in StaticR.rel, and you'll hear Mushroom Gorge music on Luigi Circuit.
--maczkopeti (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll do this test later.
But you agree, that LC and MC plays the same sound. So a different ID without comment is misleading the reader, because it is irrelevant for a standard MKW user, why they play the same music. Maybe the truth is in the middle.
-- Wiimm (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Slot 42 Materials

I'm on the way to implement the material detection for moonview. Have you tested, if the material names are case sensitive? -- Wiimm (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Haven't tested that yet, but I'm guessing they are.
--maczkopeti (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I made a test series and created 3 variants of MH:
  • renamed road01 to ROAD01
  • renamed road01 to road02 and road02 to road01
  • renamed road01 to roadx1
Then I tested all variants on Luigi Circuit (no freeze) and on MH (3x freeze). So my conclusions:
  • Material names are case sensitive.
  • Not only a material name must be existent, also it's content is important.
So I plan to create sha1 hash values for each material to verify the content too.
-- Wiimm (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I found all material names of list in staticr in a row, with one exception: "Iwa" is not in staticr. So my guess is, that "Iwa" is not necessary. Can you please confirm it?
btw, neither main.dol nor staticr.rel contains "polygon" (polygon11 and polygon60 were the old way to detect MH).
-- Wiimm (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
"Iwa" is necessary, but I don't know how it is referenced. -- Wiimm (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I once did a test with renaming normal materials and it worked.
As for the polygons, they aren't needed. The materials don't even need to be linked to a polygon in order to make the track work.
--maczkopeti (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Iwa is referenced in the StaticR.rel You must've overlooked it, Wiimm.
--maczkopeti (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed! I used tools "strings" to extract the strings and its default is a minimal string length of 4 -- blamed. btw, content comparing is coming soon. -- Wiimm (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
An idea: maybe it is possible to place the 12 materials in another BRRES loaded by KMP, so that Moonview accept it?? -- Wiimm (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I once tried putting the materials into the vrcorn and it froze, so most likely not.
--maczkopeti (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This material issue is also found in some objects like item boxes, fake item boxes and bob-omb (I think this last one needs a specific texture name, don't remember if it needed also the material). I don't really know why, this game is weird. Also, kart_killer (Bullet Bill) bone must be named "body", or it will freeze. And battle coin models can't be changed, when you try, you'll get the original model with your custom one's textures if they have the same material name. —Atlas (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Coincidentally, all of the required materials have Mi_LightMask (the headlight effect's texture) referenced in MH's course_model.brres. My guess is that the headlight effect originally meant to be slot-based, but was later changed to be part of the BRRES.
--maczkopeti (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I just figured it out: The materials are referenced because the light effect in them are disabled for the opening cameras.
--maczkopeti (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Disabling the cameras enables a track for slot 4.2? (just a thought) -- Wiimm (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
If the track still freezes on Time Trials if the materials aren't present, then most likely not.
--maczkopeti (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Going offline

I'll be offline until June 17th because I need to focus on studying for my finals.
--maczkopeti (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Good luck -- Wiimm (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
And I'm done.
--maczkopeti (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Welcome back —Atlas (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


Oh, i didn't notice. I'm really stupid, i just thought they looked better. At least did you check the paste? Is everything right? -Dswii3ds (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

New Moderator Team

I recommend to build a new moderator team, because you can't do all by yourself (a question of time (total and 24h/day)). Good candidates are active members with autopatrol right and other good and active editors. Also think about inactive moderators and new autopatrolers.

-- Wiimm (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

wbz vs. szs

For me it is ok, if you replace some/all wbz file by szs.

But in the past, we had 2 or 3 DMCA takedown waves for szs files. And I offer >2000 tracks at my own website. So I decided for me to offer only wbz files to be on the right side of the law.

-- Wiimm (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

On author columns

I did not mean to undo any decision by you, but I felt that the author columns on my articles were needed for several reasons:

  • To distinguish updates by myself and others;
  • to distinguish collaborative releases (see GP Mario Beach);
  • to specify that I'm not the only author of a track, whether that's forward or prior in time.

--SuperMario64DS (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to standardize the version history tables, and one important aspect is to fit everything into the 3 columns.
  1. It is always assumed that a version of a track was made by the author unless stated otherwise in the information column.
  2. It is not necessary to mark who took part in which version on tracks with multiple authors. It is enough to know whether an update is official or not.
  3. Someone who updated a track does not necessarily become the author of it. I don't claim to be the author of any of the tracks I updated.
--maczkopeti (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
If we want to standardise version histories, why not adopt the author column? It's semantic.
  • Placement of the author in the information column is non-standard.
  • It can be seen to be necessary to list the author of that update so another person is not attributed for work they did not commit.
  • If someone were to remake a track, depending on their role, they'd be the author of that iteration.
--SuperMario64DS (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree maczkopeti in 1. and 3., but not in 2.: I think, it is always important who updated the track for different reasons:
  • This is only a hobby and the updater's notification is its only fee.
  • For me it is important, if a well known person or a new one updated the track.
However, 3 columns are enough.
--Wiimm (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Can we explain why three columns are enough? I adopted this practice of adding the author column several years ago and no one had had an issue with it prior. This is a movement to implement "formality" that has not been decided upon. Say, the history tables were a database - what information would you want to retrieve in the future? Release date, release version, author, and description.
"History tables" aren't even included on pages by default, as they must be manually added. And in the case of formality, we see a variety of "update by", "updated by", "hot fix by", "hotfix by", "altered by", etc. In addition, release descriptions themselves do not follow a set format. Column names and order do not either. Yet, we've yet to encounter a case in which a user cannot deduct information from the page on the basis that its form does not match another. It becomes further difficult to implement formality if descriptions have no form themselves, and in trying to enforce a form you cause more difficulty than necessary. I want to choose to keep this option for my tracks, as I feel it's useful. --SuperMario64DS (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
While no one really complained about the author column, nobody added it to their own pages either, maybe except for Horsti12 in the past, but I already removed them on multiple occasions. The history table is in Template:Custom-Track, just commented out, and it has the 3 columns. As for what terminology is used for unofficial updates, we don't have any standardization for that yet, but maybe I'll add one later.
We either have the author column on all pages or none of them. I'm not gonna make exceptions.
@Wiimm: I've seen many pages where a track with multiple authors had an update in which I'm pretty sure not all of the authors actually took part in. Such case is White Garden, where I'm pretty sure fixing a minimap wasn't a three-men job.
This is pretty similar to the naming in your track archive. In the case of GP Mario Beach, even if Beta 1a wasn't worked on by DJ Lowgey, he still gets the credit, since he is still part of the track.
--maczkopeti (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
You're not distinguishing between the author column and credits. Those updates involved difficult work, which DJ Lowgey did not to contribute to. His only credit is in early production. Someone who builds a building does not get credit for its maintenance. And later when I release v2 of GP Mario Beach, which doesn't involve DJ Lowgey at all, how am I to credit that? Does he get credit for that too?
Furthermore, if later in time someone takes control of a custom track, or becomes a co-author, and their name is added to "creator(s)", do they not now implicitly have credit for **every** update prior to their involvement now? Whereas always having an author column avoids this issues, not having one mandates that we go back and address authorship for each update. We're also assuming the "Custom Track"-info table is being read. It's a separate entity all together, and its data has no association with the history table (stated or direct).
There are two issues here: credence and formality. Work on an original iteration does not grant credence to future updates. They get credit for the groundwork, but not the product. Second, under this system we must now always specify "update by USERNAME" to avoid future authorship errors (but then what do we put for the initial release?) - otherwise we dismiss iterative authorship. And if we were to change the wording of "update by USERNAME" in the future, we've created a much larger task than renaming columns, especially if multiple authors are involved in one update (where the wording may vary even further).
--SuperMario64DS (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

template:age and Widgets

Only a hint: Sometimes Widgets and the related Smarty are the better and easier solution for complex tasks.

-- Wiimm (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

About Pipeline Speedway

Pipeline Speedway II is not the same track as the first one. II is a follow-up of I. It should be considered a different custom track, much like Aquadrom Stage 2 is a different track from Aquadrom Stage (even though they are MUCH more similar than Pipeline Speedway I and II).
--Igorseabra4 (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

How are you?

Hi maczkopeti, how are you. I have noticed that you didn't any edit in December. What happened?

-- Wiimm (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

For various personal reasons, I had to take a break from everything Mario Kart-related. I will most likely not consider a return until January 13th, as I have an exam coming up.
--maczkopeti (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
An exam is more important than online life. God Luck! -- Wiimm (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I failed. I'll have to retake it on 27th.
--maczkopeti (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
That's bad :( Good luck again -- Wiimm (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)